>> Like many arguments made against Wikipedia, this is a "Why I think it shouldn't work", but doesn't make any reference to studies on how well it actually does work in practice. Wikipedia is not at the planning stage, some hypothetical idea being bounced around; it's here and available, and it should be judged on the resultant content.
Because I subscribe to the believe that it does *not* work -- at least not as its being taunted: as an encyclopedia -- and that its successes are measured in very biased ways by its proponents. Popularity and high traffic does not make it accurate or better.
And you are right: my argument does apply to all online resources. Online resources have their place and their benefits, and so does the Wikipedia. But they should not claim to be more than what they are. Contrary to what most might assume, the Web does not contain most of the accumulated human knowledge. And even if or when it does, the same argument applies: the low barriers to entry and the irreverence to erudition will make the entire collection no more than a gigantic collection of apocryphal trivia.
Wikipedia is already "slightly cheaper" than the Encyclopedia Britannica; now all it needs is to have the words "Don't Panic" inscribed in large friendly letters on its cover, and it'll surpass it as the standard repository of all knowledge and wisdom in the Galaxy.
>> I mean, how do you know which sources to go looking for in the first place? Since Britannica may contain errors also, you'd better be prepared to go looking for experts on the matter and primary sources (assuming again you magically know where they are).
The fact that is lost in many Wikipedia proponents is that, traditionally, it is a lot more expensive to put words to print and distribute it; especially in such great numbers and bulk as encyclopedic collections. Moreover, it is sometimes prohibitively expensive, or at least greatly incovenient, to correct a mistake made in print. This inconvenience affects the readers themselves -- paying customers -- and since publishing companies are in business for the money (apart from any altruistic mandate for academic access to information), it is in their best interest to make sure that the materials are correct to begin with. And so, they employ strict quality control, editing, and research staff to minimize the amount and impact of any inaccuracies.
These incentives (or deterrents, depending on how you look at it) do not exist in a "free-for-all" system as the Wikipedia. I do not believe that every single article in the Wikipedia was written by a pimpled-face teenager as a prank, nor will I claim that any of them were written by such (although I've seen my share of inaccuracies in Wikipedia articles). But the fact that they *could* very easily have been; and that their correction or deletion depends largely on the diligence and inclination of volunteers to find such articles, renders the entire content suspect.
Oh, I think sometimes a revolution is the only way to get all your rights back. Consider this somewhat forgotten document, it goes something like:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..."
yadda, yadda, yadda...
"The history of the present [administration in power] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
yadda, yadda, yadda...
"For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury"
"For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences"...
"For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments"
and so on, and so forth...
But then you have to have the balls to put your musket where your mouth is, as it were.
>> XSS, on the other hand, relies as much in your lack of escaping as in browser-specific "features" such as the ability of MSIE to execute arbitrary Javascript code embedded in CSS.
I'm sorry, but if a developer is aware of this IE bug^H^H^Hfeature, then why can't he properly validate and encode tainted input in much the same way? Any arbitrary text will not execute from CSS, only JavaScript code will execute. And not only any JavaScript code, but code that is properly embedded for it to be recognized as executable code by the browser. Whatever markings it has that make the browser execute it should *never* be valid user code, and so there is no reason for a properly implemented application to allow it in the first place.
>> He also points out that though it wasnt the best OS they knew how to make at the time (points at NT) it was the best release of Windows that Microsoft ever did (in his opinion).
Maybe he meant "release" literally, as in the marketing extravaganza and all the hoopla and parties that ensued when Windows 95 was first released. No other product has since been able to match the long lines, desperation, and tremendous hype^H^H^H^Hexpectation of that version.
>> I thought that free speech meant that expressing opinions was good, even necessary for a healty society ? Why not get over the negative aspect of those opinions and start using those opinions as a tool to move forward ?
The Free Speech that you speak of is enshrined in the Constitution of the United States to prevent Congress (i.e. the Federal Government) from usurping the right of the people to speak freely. It does not preclude any private entity, corporations and other employers included, from discriminating against anything you say. And, if it so happens that they don't like what you said about them, the first ammendment still does not preclude them from taking decisive action against you. Cause and effect. Action and reaction. Or, as the previous poster said, the responsiblity for the consequences of your actions.
In many states, an employer is legally allowed to fire you, breaking an employment contract, for whatever reason, even for not liking something you said, in the same manner that you are legally allowed to quit (and break the contract) for whatever reason such as, say, you didn't like the new vision or direction the company is taking. And this is stipulated on state legislation, completely independent and unrelated to the Constitution of the United States. Again, cause and effect, action and reaction, and responsibility for the consequences thereof.
Wow, I'm too stupid to run Linux! How did you know? You must be psychic! Or perhaps my sig gave it away?
*shock* *amazement* *awe*
Now, let me see if, in turn, I can also guess who you are. Hum, Anonymous Coward... posting gratuitous insults in Slashdot... lurking within a Microsoft-based article discussion, waiting for any opportunity to impose his self-acknowledged superiority... trumping Linux as the end-all-be-all of human achievements...
I ran Windows 2000 for years, just because I hated Windows XP for the very same reasons you mention. Now I run a MacMini with OS X, and never looked back. Trust me, you should follow.
So, has anybody? I haven't either, but according to Andrew Orlowski from The Register, it was actually what most of us wanted in the first place, and not a RIAA-sponsored bill. In fact, the RIAA opposed it as vigorously as the EFF.
So tell me, all-knowing Anonymous Coward, what is the purpose of forcing a session cookie (i.e. not letting you access the site at all if you don't accept them), for anonymous/guest visitors, whom do not log in, and whom have no use for a coherent session? I can think of two reasons for this:
1. For tracking visit traversal paths 2. Lack of foresight from the developer of the software, whom assumed that everybody accepted cookies and therefore the entire site framework depends on sessions (even to access the home page), even though random anonymous visitors do not have a need for it.
The first one is annoying and invasive, and the second one is just braindead design. Most sites allow you to read at least their homepage without forcing you to establish a formal session, or to log-in. Might as well force everybody to create an account and log-in just to read someone's personal rants.
But its not a matter of paranoia, just a matter of personal preference: I clicked on the link, the site requested to set a cookie, I declined, and I was told I couldn't read the article until I accepted the cookie. I then decided that the article didn't interest me that much.
And about the AdSense comment, yes it was an exaggeration on my part, as I didn't even visit the site, so I didn't know if they had any ads or not.
Thank you for the post. I see now that I didn't miss much, except some blogger's rant. I have my own reasons to dislike PHP and MySQL, so I don't necessarily disagree with the author's comments. However, this article is mainly a vanity/opinion piece, written perhaps with the aim to spark "controversy" (read: flamebait). Its just another two-bit blogger blowing smoke.
HOW TO BLOG EFFECTIVELY (or nifty writing for the web two-point-oh)
1. Find a subject you have an issue with, even if you do not know much about it. 2. Click on "Creat new entry" on your favorite blog-o-matic software du juor. 3. Start ranting about such subject, avoiding obsolete hallmarks of the web one-point-oh era, such as:
a. Proper grammar and sentence structure.
b. Research
c. A point
d. spell-checker (or worse, actually spelling correctly in the first place)
e. Eloquence
f. Proof-reading (or re-reading at least once) when you're done writing. 4. Click "Submit" or "Save". 5. ??? 6. Profit!
Maybe it's time you upgrade from Win 3.11 and Mosaic.
Hum, I'm using Firefox 1.5.0.3 (DeerPark) on MacOS X Panther, so my problem is not the platform. My problem is that I refuse to accept cookies from a site just to read a rant, when its only purpose is to inflate some two-bit blogger's traffic stats and fuel his ego and AdSense revenue.
You missed the point. It is not a *requirement* per se, but as some previous poster claims, it helps, say, for an engineer to be familiar with the strength, abilities, and limitations of the building materials, and to have an understanding of the respective processes that bring them to be, in order to more effectively design structures which will use such materials.
Notice that *nobody* has suggested so far that the original poster _must_ learn Assembly in order to do programming, but that understanding the lower levels of abstraction will help him creating more effective code.
Bravo! I agree absolutely. Suggesting an end-user learn Assembly in order to use a software application would be like suggesting someone learn about smelting in order to drive a car. But a programmer is the creator of a software application, and therefore the builder, not the driver.
Slashdot Mirror
>> Like many arguments made against Wikipedia, this is a "Why I think it shouldn't work", but doesn't make any reference to studies on how well it actually does work in practice. Wikipedia is not at the planning stage, some hypothetical idea being bounced around; it's here and available, and it should be judged on the resultant content.
Because I subscribe to the believe that it does *not* work -- at least not as its being taunted: as an encyclopedia -- and that its successes are measured in very biased ways by its proponents. Popularity and high traffic does not make it accurate or better.
And you are right: my argument does apply to all online resources. Online resources have their place and their benefits, and so does the Wikipedia. But they should not claim to be more than what they are. Contrary to what most might assume, the Web does not contain most of the accumulated human knowledge. And even if or when it does, the same argument applies: the low barriers to entry and the irreverence to erudition will make the entire collection no more than a gigantic collection of apocryphal trivia.
-dZ.
Wikipedia is already "slightly cheaper" than the Encyclopedia Britannica; now all it needs is to have the words "Don't Panic" inscribed in large friendly letters on its cover, and it'll surpass it as the standard repository of all knowledge and wisdom in the Galaxy.
>> I mean, how do you know which sources to go looking for in the first place? Since Britannica may contain errors also, you'd better be prepared to go looking for experts on the matter and primary sources (assuming again you magically know where they are).
The fact that is lost in many Wikipedia proponents is that, traditionally, it is a lot more expensive to put words to print and distribute it; especially in such great numbers and bulk as encyclopedic collections. Moreover, it is sometimes prohibitively expensive, or at least greatly incovenient, to correct a mistake made in print. This inconvenience affects the readers themselves -- paying customers -- and since publishing companies are in business for the money (apart from any altruistic mandate for academic access to information), it is in their best interest to make sure that the materials are correct to begin with. And so, they employ strict quality control, editing, and research staff to minimize the amount and impact of any inaccuracies.
These incentives (or deterrents, depending on how you look at it) do not exist in a "free-for-all" system as the Wikipedia. I do not believe that every single article in the Wikipedia was written by a pimpled-face teenager as a prank, nor will I claim that any of them were written by such (although I've seen my share of inaccuracies in Wikipedia articles). But the fact that they *could* very easily have been; and that their correction or deletion depends largely on the diligence and inclination of volunteers to find such articles, renders the entire content suspect.
-dZ.
>> Trees regrow.
Ah, that must be why the Amazon is as lush as ever.
-dZ.
>> The lumber used would consume all of the trees in 500 square miles of forest.
What do they mean "would"? If that's the amount of wood used, then 500 square miles of forest was most definitely consumed, no?
-dZ.
Oh, I think sometimes a revolution is the only way to get all your rights back. Consider this somewhat forgotten document, it goes something like:
...
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..."
yadda, yadda, yadda...
"The history of the present [administration in power] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
yadda, yadda, yadda...
"For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury"
"For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences"
"For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments"
and so on, and so forth...
But then you have to have the balls to put your musket where your mouth is, as it were.
-dZ.
>> XSS, on the other hand, relies as much in your lack of escaping as in browser-specific "features" such as the ability of MSIE to execute arbitrary Javascript code embedded in CSS.
I'm sorry, but if a developer is aware of this IE bug^H^H^Hfeature, then why can't he properly validate and encode tainted input in much the same way? Any arbitrary text will not execute from CSS, only JavaScript code will execute. And not only any JavaScript code, but code that is properly embedded for it to be recognized as executable code by the browser. Whatever markings it has that make the browser execute it should *never* be valid user code, and so there is no reason for a properly implemented application to allow it in the first place.
-dZ.
>> He also points out that though it wasnt the best OS they knew how to make at the time (points at NT) it was the best release of Windows that Microsoft ever did (in his opinion).
Maybe he meant "release" literally, as in the marketing extravaganza and all the hoopla and parties that ensued when Windows 95 was first released. No other product has since been able to match the long lines, desperation, and tremendous hype^H^H^H^Hexpectation of that version.
-dZ.
>> I thought that free speech meant that expressing opinions was good, even necessary for a healty society ?
Why not get over the negative aspect of those opinions and start using those opinions as a tool to move forward ?
The Free Speech that you speak of is enshrined in the Constitution of the United States to prevent Congress (i.e. the Federal Government) from usurping the right of the people to speak freely. It does not preclude any private entity, corporations and other employers included, from discriminating against anything you say. And, if it so happens that they don't like what you said about them, the first ammendment still does not preclude them from taking decisive action against you. Cause and effect. Action and reaction. Or, as the previous poster said, the responsiblity for the consequences of your actions.
In many states, an employer is legally allowed to fire you, breaking an employment contract, for whatever reason, even for not liking something you said, in the same manner that you are legally allowed to quit (and break the contract) for whatever reason such as, say, you didn't like the new vision or direction the company is taking. And this is stipulated on state legislation, completely independent and unrelated to the Constitution of the United States. Again, cause and effect, action and reaction, and responsibility for the consequences thereof.
-dZ.
Wow, I'm too stupid to run Linux! How did you know? You must be psychic! Or perhaps my sig gave it away?
*shock* *amazement* *awe*
Now, let me see if, in turn, I can also guess who you are. Hum, Anonymous Coward... posting gratuitous insults in Slashdot... lurking within a Microsoft-based article discussion, waiting for any opportunity to impose his self-acknowledged superiority... trumping Linux as the end-all-be-all of human achievements...
Naw, its just too easy.
-dZ.
Oh man, what I would give for some mod points right now...!
er... well, actually I wish I had them, and I would mod you +1 if I did, but I'm not sure I'd give anything for them. I like'em free as usual.
-dZ.
I ran Windows 2000 for years, just because I hated Windows XP for the very same reasons you mention. Now I run a MacMini with OS X, and never looked back. Trust me, you should follow.
-dZ.
So, has anybody? I haven't either, but according to Andrew Orlowski from The Register, it was actually what most of us wanted in the first place, and not a RIAA-sponsored bill. In fact, the RIAA opposed it as vigorously as the EFF.
-dZ.
It seems you don't need Vista to get your registry sandboxed after all.
I, on the otherhand, sandbox my registry with Qemu, on Mac OS X.
-dZ.
Then, why not go for the Batmobile?
:)
(Sorry, couldn't resist
In reference to: In The Beginning Was The Command Line
-dZ.
So tell me, all-knowing Anonymous Coward, what is the purpose of forcing a session cookie (i.e. not letting you access the site at all if you don't accept them), for anonymous/guest visitors, whom do not log in, and whom have no use for a coherent session? I can think of two reasons for this:
1. For tracking visit traversal paths
2. Lack of foresight from the developer of the software, whom assumed that everybody accepted cookies and therefore the entire site framework depends on sessions (even to access the home page), even though random anonymous visitors do not have a need for it.
The first one is annoying and invasive, and the second one is just braindead design. Most sites allow you to read at least their homepage without forcing you to establish a formal session, or to log-in. Might as well force everybody to create an account and log-in just to read someone's personal rants.
But its not a matter of paranoia, just a matter of personal preference: I clicked on the link, the site requested to set a cookie, I declined, and I was told I couldn't read the article until I accepted the cookie. I then decided that the article didn't interest me that much.
And about the AdSense comment, yes it was an exaggeration on my part, as I didn't even visit the site, so I didn't know if they had any ads or not.
-dZ.
Thank you for the post. I see now that I didn't miss much, except some blogger's rant. I have my own reasons to dislike PHP and MySQL, so I don't necessarily disagree with the author's comments. However, this article is mainly a vanity/opinion piece, written perhaps with the aim to spark "controversy" (read: flamebait). Its just another two-bit blogger blowing smoke.
HOW TO BLOG EFFECTIVELY
(or nifty writing for the web two-point-oh)
1. Find a subject you have an issue with, even if you do not know much about it.
2. Click on "Creat new entry" on your favorite blog-o-matic software du juor.
3. Start ranting about such subject, avoiding obsolete hallmarks of the web one-point-oh era, such as:
a. Proper grammar and sentence structure.
b. Research
c. A point
d. spell-checker (or worse, actually spelling correctly in the first place)
e. Eloquence
f. Proof-reading (or re-reading at least once) when you're done writing.
4. Click "Submit" or "Save".
5. ???
6. Profit!
-dz.
Maybe it's time you upgrade from Win 3.11 and Mosaic.
Hum, I'm using Firefox 1.5.0.3 (DeerPark) on MacOS X Panther, so my problem is not the platform. My problem is that I refuse to accept cookies from a site just to read a rant, when its only purpose is to inflate some two-bit blogger's traffic stats and fuel his ego and AdSense revenue.
-dZ.
I think its supposed to be:
Windoes IIS MS-SQL VBScriPT (or perhaps C-SharP)
I thought the P was for vbscriPt...
-dZ.
The site forces me to swallow its cookies in order to read it. I guess it really didn't want me to visit. Oh well.
-dZ.
You missed the point. It is not a *requirement* per se, but as some previous poster claims, it helps, say, for an engineer to be familiar with the strength, abilities, and limitations of the building materials, and to have an understanding of the respective processes that bring them to be, in order to more effectively design structures which will use such materials.
Notice that *nobody* has suggested so far that the original poster _must_ learn Assembly in order to do programming, but that understanding the lower levels of abstraction will help him creating more effective code.
-dZ.
Bravo! I agree absolutely. Suggesting an end-user learn Assembly in order to use a software application would be like suggesting someone learn about smelting in order to drive a car. But a programmer is the creator of a software application, and therefore the builder, not the driver.
-dZ.
"A planet where apes evolved from men?"
-dZ.
What?! Only an idiot would think of using that as the combination!
-dZ.